coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6. The applicant was born in 1954 and lived in Czarne, Poland.
7.  The applicant was arrested by the police on 12 September 2001 on a charge of murder and by a decision of the Bytów District Court of 14 September 2001 he was detained on remand.
8. Subsequently, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was prolonged on several occasions by the Słupsk Regional Court (decisions of 6 December 2001, 2 January 2002, 22 March 2002, 20 December 2002, 18 March 2003 and 16 June 2003).
9. The applicant on several occasions unsuccessfully applied to be released and to have the preventive measure imposed on him changed into a more lenient one.
10. The courts justified their decisions prolonging the applicant’s detention on remand and their refusals to release him by the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence concerned and by the severity of the anticipated sentence.
11. On 22 March 2002 the Słupsk Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. On 5 September 2002 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the lower court.
12. On 16 September 2003 the Słupsk Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. On 10 February 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the lower court.
13. On 7 February 2005 the Słupsk Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. On 23 June 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to six years’ imprisonment. A cassation appeal against the second-instance judgment was available.
14. On 23 June 2005 the applicant was released because of his health which had prevented him from serving a term of imprisonment. The applicant submitted that from August 2005 he had been examined several times by psychiatrists and that he had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital for short periods on five occasions. He had been diagnosed with nervous depression.
15. On 5 March 2003 the Court received a letter from the applicant dated 9 February 2003. The envelope bore the following stamps: “the Słupsk Regional Court (...)” and “Censored on 18 February” (Ocenzurowano dnia 18.02) and an illegible signature.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Aksaray.
5.  In 1995 the Municipality of Konya decided to expropriate the applicant’s property. The title was transferred to the Municipality of Konya on 26 August 1996.
6.  On 1 May 2003 the applicant brought an action before the Konya Court of First Instance for increased compensation. On 21 June 2004 the Konya Court of First Instance partly accepted the applicant’s claim and awarded him additional compensation of 1,861,980,000[1] Turkish liras (TRL), which bore statutory interest running from 26 August 1996. On 29 December 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.
7.  The applicant requested rectification. On 18 April 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the request for rectification and notified the applicant on 10 May 2005.
8.  On 22 June 2005 the authorities paid the applicant 13,783 Turkish liras (TRY)[2].
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 8 April 1995 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident, I.R., had taken out insurance with the insurance company A.
7.  On 18 October 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against I.R. and the insurance company A. in the Celje District Court, seeking damages in the amount of 3,688,433 Slovenian tolars (SIT) (approximately 15,370 euros) (EUR) for the injuries sustained.
8.  Between 29 November 2001 and 12 May 2006 the applicant lodged several written submissions and adduced evidence.
9.  Between 15 December 2003 and 4 September 2006 the court held eight hearings, one of which was conducted at the site of the accident. It does not appear that any of the hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s fault.
10.  During the proceedings, the court also appointed two experts and requested an additional opinion from one of them.
11. After the last hearing in the case, the court delivered an interim judgment (vmesna sodba) determining the responsibility for the damage, which was served on the applicant on 25 September 2006.
12.  On 9 October 2006 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. I.R. and the insurance company A also appealed.
13.  On 9 May 2007 the Celje Higher Court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and changed the first-instance court’s interim judgment. It found I.R. and the insurance company A responsible for 70% of the damage suffered due to the accident.
14.  The judgment was served on the applicant on 18 May 2007.
15.  On 13 June 2007 the insurance company A lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. These proceedings are still pending.
16.  On 2 March 2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Celje District Court. In this supervisory appeal the applicant explained that the proceedings had started on 18 October 1999 and were still pending. As a consequence, his right to a hearing within a reasonable time had been violated. He requested that the proceedings be expedited and the decision be delivered immediately.
17.  On 23 March 2007, referring to sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”), the President of the Celje District Court replied to the supervisory appeal by explaining that the case file had been transferred to the Celje Higher Court on 20 March 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and currently lives in Tbilisi.
5.  In the course of a police operation conducted on 15 September 1997 in the village of Becho, Mestia District, the applicant’s house, which happened to be close to the scene, was accidentally burned down together with the adjacent farm buildings. The house had been the applicant’s place of residence prior to the incident.
6.  On 15 July 1999 the applicant sued the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Finance for the damage done and, in a judgment of 27 December 2000, the Krtsanisi-Mtatsminda District Court in Tbilisi ordered the respondent authorities to pay him 60,000 Georgian laris (GEL) (26,646 euros (EUR))[1] in compensation for the destruction of his property (“the judgment debt”). The operative part of the judgment indicated that the payment should be made from the State Budget for 2001.
7.  The judgment of 27 December 2000 was upheld in full by the Tbilisi Regional Court and the Supreme Court of Georgia on 21 March and 2 October 2002, respectively, and became binding on the latter date.
8.  On 19 November 2002 the Krtsanisi-Mtatsminda District Court issued the respondent authorities with a writ of execution which reiterated the obligation to discharge the judgment debt from the 2001 State Budget. The authorities remained inactive.
9.  Subsequent to the applicant’s complaint, on 8 January 2003 the Enforcement Department of the Ministry of Justice (“the Enforcement Department”) invited the respondent authorities to discharge the judgment debt of their own accord within the following three months, on pain of forcible enforcement measures. The allotted time expired without the judgment debt having been paid, but no measures followed.
10.  On 11 October 2005 the Enforcement Department issued the National Bank of Georgia with an order to pay the judgment debt. However, as that order indicated the wrong amount, the National Bank sent it back on 25 November 2005 unenforced.
11.  On 1 December 2006 the applicant asked the Ministry of Finance for news of progress in the enforcement proceedings.
12.  On 13 December 2006 the Ministry of Finance replied that it was unable to discharge the judgment debt, as the Ministry of the Interior had failed to do so of its own accord.
13.  In a decision of 19 December 2006, at the applicant’s request, the Tbilisi City Court removed from the judgment of 27 December 2000, as an objectively unenforceable condition, the indication that the debt should be paid from the 2001 State Budget. That decision became binding on 28 May 2007, and on 4 September 2007 the City Court issued a writ for its enforcement.
14.  On 2 April 2008, on the basis of the previous enforcement writ of 19 November 2002, the Enforcement Department requested the National Bank of Georgia to disburse the judgment debt. The latter authority did so on 4 April 2008, and three days later the applicant retrieved the debt in full.
6.  The first applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Ilnitsa, Ukraine. The second applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Lensk, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya).
7.  In the 1990s the applicants subscribed to a State savings scheme for buying Russian-made cars. The State failed to fulfil its obligation to provide them with cars. The applicants brought court actions against the authorities, seeking to recover the monetary value of the State promissory notes for purchasing of a Russian-made car.
8.  On the dates listed in the Appendix the domestic courts of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld their actions and awarded them compensation in the amounts specified below, payable by the Ministry of Finance. On the dates listed in the Appendix the judgments were upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic and became final. The enforcement proceedings were opened.
9.  The awards remained unenforced.
10.  On the dates cited in the Appendix the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, upon an application from the Ministry of Finance and by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgments in the applicants' favour, re-examined the cases and dismissed the applicants' actions, having found that the lower courts had incorrectly interpreted and applied the domestic law.
11.  The first applicant submitted that he had not been timeously notified of the session of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) and therefore could not attend it. He received a copy of the judgment several months after the hearing at the Presidium.
12.  On 26 November 2004 the first applicant received 49,259.70 Russian roubles (RUB) of compensation in respect of a part of the promissory note value.
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Ohrid.
5.  On 16 September 1994 she brought before the Ohrid Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) a compensation claim against the Ohrid Health Centre (“the hospital”) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss sustained as a result of an alleged medical negligence during a 1991 surgery.
6.  On 1 December 1994 the first-instance court ordered the applicant to propose, within ten days, an expert so that to assess whether she had received proper care in the hospital.
7.  On 27 February 1995 the applicant made a proposal, while the hospital consented with Mr V.Dz. being the expert on 19 April 1995.
8.  On 8 May 1995 the first-instance court ordered the expert to produce his opinion, which he did on 3 October 1995. On this latter date, the applicant increased the value of her claim.
9.  On 14 November 1995 the applicant requested additional expert examination. As on 7 March 1996 the expert requested exclusion, the court ordered the applicant to propose a new expert within fifteen days. She proposed a new expert on 17 December 1996. The expert submitted his report only on 5 November 1997, while being ordered to do so on 6 March 1997.
10.  After three hearings being adjourned on the applicant’s request and four hearings on the hospital’s request, the first-instance court ruled partly in favour of the applicant on 17 March 1998.
11.  On 20 October 1998 the Bitola Court of Appeal upheld the parties’ appeals and remitted the case for a renewed consideration.
12.  Hearings scheduled for 30 June and 9 November 1999 respectively, were adjourned due to the absence of witnesses.
13.  On 26 May 1999 the first-instance court requested an additional expert examination by Mr V.Dz.. On 9 November 1999 the court withdrew this request due to the expert’s repeated absence from hearings.
14.  On 14 December 1999 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 17 May 2000 the Bitola Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s appeal and referred the case back for a fresh consideration.
15.  On 16 December 2000 the first-instance court ordered the Forensic Institute to draw up the third expert report.
16.  On 27 March 2002 the Forensic Institute informed the court that the applicant had failed to attend medical examinations fixed for 6, 14 and 25 March 2002, respectively.
17.  On 23 April 2002 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim relying, inter alia, on her failure to undergo medical examination. This decision was upheld by the Bitola Court of Appeal’s and the Supreme Court’s decisions of 5 February 2003 and 28 January 2004, respectively. This latter decision was served on the applicant on 10 April 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in the town of Kerch, Ukraine.
5.  In February 1999 the Kerch Tax Inspectorate instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, who ran a small business, on a charge of tax evasion and attached his property. Later, the criminal proceedings against him were terminated on the ground that his actions did not constitute a criminal offence under the new criminal law.
6.  On 17 November 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Kerch Tax Inspectorate claiming compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to him.
7.  On 10 August 2001 the Kerch City Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part.
8.  In September 2001 the defendant in the case lodged an appeal against that judgment.
9.  On 11 August 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 10 August 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
10.  On 12 December 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation.
11.  By a judgment of 16 June 2004 the Kerch City Court dismissed the applicant’s claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage. By a ruling adopted the same date the court terminated proceedings in respect of pecuniary damage.
12.  On 27 September 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and ruling and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh consideration.
13.  On 6 October 2004 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the ruling of 27 September 2004.  On 30 August 2007 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, dismissed it.
14.  In accordance with the ruling of 27 September 2004 the case was remitted to the first-instance court and the proceedings are still pending before it.
4.  The first applicant was born in 1947 and the second in 1949. Both applicants live in the city of Mykolaiv, Ukraine.
5.  By two separate judgments of 9 December 2002, the Zavodskoy District Court of Mykolaiv awarded the first applicant 6,932 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) [1] and the second applicant UAH 4,329.73[2] in salary arrears and other payments, to be paid by the open joint-stock company Chornomormebli (“the debtor company”).
6.  The State-owned company Chornomorsky sudnobudivny zavod held 51 % of the shares in the debtor company on the date the judgments were delivered.
7.  The judgments became final and enforcement proceedings were instituted.
8.  In the period between April and June 2003 the first applicant received UAH 2,425.59 and the second UAH 1,567.38 in part settlement of the judgment debts.
9.  By a letter of 15 July 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service notified the applicants that they were unable to collect the full amount of the awards because the financial assets of the debtor company were insufficient. They further explained that other assets could not be sold, as the State owned 51 % of the debtor company’s share capital. The debtor company was therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property”.
10.  Since 5 May 2004 the State has held 9,64 % of the shares in Chornomorsky sudnobudivny zavod.
11.  By a letter of 11 April 2006 the State Bailiffs’ Service proposed that the applicants accept the debtor company’s seized property in satisfaction of the judgment debts, but the applicants did not agree.
12.  In February 2007 insolvency proceedings were instituted against the debtor company. On 12 June 2007 it was declared insolvent.
13.  In September 2007 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued since the debtor company had been declared insolvent. The liquidation proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine.
5. On 19 March 2004 the Moskovskiy District Court of Kharkiv (“the court”) partly allowed the applicant’s claims and awarded him 4,643.42 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and compensation for loss of earnings, to be paid by the State-controlled company “Serp i molot”.
6.  The applicant did not appeal against this decision under the ordinary appeal procedure, but on 3 February 2005 he lodged a cassation appeal against it. On 4 February 2005 the court returned the applicant’s cassation appeal since the relevant decision had not been appealed under the ordinary appeal procedure.
7.  The applicant states that he received the ruling of 4 February 2005 when the time-limit for lodging an appeal against it had already expired. The applicant did not provide this Court with any document certifying that he had requested the domestic courts to renew the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the ruling of 4 February 2005.
8.  On 31 August 2004 the Moskovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service of Kharkiv initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 19 March 2004.
9.  Following insolvency and liquidation proceedings instituted against the company, on 10 October 2007 the latter was closed down and removed from the relevant enterprises’ register.
10.  In 2007 the applicant received UAH 163.71. The remainder of the judgment has not been enforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the town of Gorlovka.
5.  In July 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno-gorodskoy District Court of Gorlovka (“the court”) against his former employer, a State company “Kommunalnik” (“the company”), claiming compensation for damages resulting from his work-related disease.
6.  On 29 December 1998 the court awarded the applicant UAH 44,273.27[1]. By the same judgment he was entitled to receive an allowance of UAH 372.24, to be paid monthly. On 5 February 1999 the Gorlovka Bailiffs’ Service (“the Bailiffs’ Service”) initiated enforcement proceedings.
7.  On 10 October 2000 the judgment was enforced in part; the applicant received UAH 127.12.
8.  In March 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the court against the company and the State Insurance Fund for Work Accidents and Work-Related Diseases (“the Fund”) seeking re-calculation of the monthly allowance paid to him for his work-related disability and claiming payment of losses sustained on account of the erroneous calculation.
9.  On 11 April 2002 the court allowed the applicant’s claims and ordered the company to pay the applicant UAH 30,645.53[2]. By the same judgment he was entitled to receive a monthly allowance of UAH 737.04, to be paid by the Fund as from 1 April 2001. On 30 May 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings.
10.  In November 2005 the applicant instituted court proceedings against the Bailiffs’ Service seeking compensation for damages caused to him by the non-enforcement of the judgments. On 29 December 2005 the court found against the applicant. On 27 April 2006 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. The applicant did not appeal in cassation.
11.  On 13 March 2008 the Bailiffs’ Service returned the enforcement writs in respect of the judgments of 29 December 1998 and 11 April 2002 to the applicant.
12.  The company failed to enforce the judgments of 29 December 1998 and 11 April 2002 in full. The Fund has no judgment debts vis-à-vis the applicant.
4.   The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the town of Chervonograd, Ukraine.
5.  On 17 September 2003 the Chervonograd Court awarded the applicant 34,041.65 Ukrainian hryvnas (about EUR 5,887) in salary arrears and other sums, to be paid by the State company Chervonogradske girnichomontazhne upravlinnya.
6.  The judgment became final and enforcement proceedings were instituted.
7.  On 25 June 2007 the Bailiffs’ Service returned the writ of enforcement to the applicant since there was a tax lien over the company’s property and it was therefore not possible to attach it. The applicant did not challenge this decision before the domestic courts; nor did he relodge the writ of execution with the Bailiffs’ Service.
8.  The judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.
5.  The applicant was born in 1945. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Płock prison.
6.  Since 1997 the applicant lived with his partner in her apartment in Płock. On 22 March 2002 she was found dead in the apartment. She had serious head injuries and broken ribs. The applicant protested his innocence. On 7 February 2003 the Płock District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with the Płock Regional Court. The applicant was charged with murder.
7.  On 28 April 2003 the Płock Regional Court gave a judgment in the case. The court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment.
8.  On 30 June 2003 the applicant appealed to the Warsaw Court of Appeal. He argued that the first‑instance court had failed to examine all the relevant circumstances of the case.
9.  On 7 October 2003 the appellate court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first‑instance court for re‑examination, having regard to certain procedural shortcomings in the proceedings.
10.  On 16 December 2003 the Płock Regional Court gave a judgment and again convicted the applicant of murder. The applicant was sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed. On 16 April 2004 the appellate court upheld the contested judgment.
11.  Throughout the judicial proceedings the applicant was represented by a legal-aid lawyer.
12.  On 28 June 2004 the court served the written grounds of the judgment on the applicant and assigned a legal-aid lawyer for the purpose of cassation proceedings.
13.  By a letter of 26 July 2004 the lawyer informed the court that he had not found any grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal.
14.  On 29 July 2004 the appellate court forwarded the lawyer’s refusal to the applicant and informed him that the time-limit for lodging the cassation appeal was to expire on 30 July 2004.
15.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the court to assign a new legal aid lawyer. The court refused to do so.